Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

That is what the right would have you believe of Al Gore's speech to MoveOn.org. However, the reality is that their critiques are the ones that have meaning problems. Daily Howler has great examples. A criticism of Gore's sound and fury:

He went on and on. He talked–he called for the immediate resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, other people as well. So do you think that that kind of rant–and he got a little more animated as he went along, that part was kind of calm–does it make an impact?

There was alot of sound and fury when Al Gore called for the resignation of Rumsfeld and Rice. However, was it signifying nothing? Was he really going "on and on" about something unimportant?
Actually, it turns out that what was going "on and on" was the unprovoked violence and torture against Iraqi prisoners. In this case, such torture signified nothing; most prisoners were innocent of anything and even those held on actual criminal charges weren't great sources of genuine intelligence.
You know what sound and fury signifies nothing? The sound and fury surrounding Al Gore's speech, the repeated lies about his mental health and his political associations. You know what sound and fury signifies nothing? Claiming that a raised voice during a political speech is somehow completely unacceptable, which is nonsensical in itself but also grossly hypocritical coming from the side that has Limbaugh and Savage spewing loud-mouthed rants about how Islam is the religiou of sub-humans.
Gore raised his voice and joined in a crowd cheering with high emotion, duh. Of course emotions are high. We are watching our beloved home, the land of the free and the home of the brave, succumb to the will of cowards who would squash dissent and free speech while sending other people's children to fight the wars they start. Free? No, of course not, not when you can't even protest effectively. Brave? Ol' Boil Butt Limbaugh and the rest of the draft dodgers are asking people to fight their battles for them and there's no way around that.
Why shouldn't we be angry? Why do right wingers use the whole "angry" argument against liberals? Does it work? Do we believe that anger is wrong for some reason?
Al Gore should be mad. He's being incredibly gracious, all things considered. But unless we learn to embrace the burning feeling of anger, we will continue to roll over and let the right take over. Anger gives strength. We might need that. As I pointed out earlier, fascists are threatening to take over our country. If we have to go underground and resist, then anger will be our best weapon.